Shipp: With both sides crying foul over privacy invasions, Bush must take heed

Posted: Wednesday, April 23, 2003

This aging veteran of the old Army took vicarious pride in watching the new Army (and Marines) sweep across Iraq, destroy enemy fighters with awesome conventional weapons and begin to establish order in a faraway land.

Bill

Shipp

more Shipp columns

www.billshipp.com

The United States produced a gigantic firepower demonstration in Iraq that must have made our surviving foes gulp nervously - and rethink their terrorist strategies - in every corner of the globe.

''This could be you, hotdog!'' our armed forces messaged every anti-U.S. tyrant as the news media transmitted footage of American forces ripping apart the regime of Saddam Hussein.

However, now that the shooting has subsided and order is being restored, we must be especially careful. Our military skill and technology notwithstanding, we can still lose the war against terrorism - right here at home.

If we abridge fundamental freedoms; if we threaten, intimidate and silence dissidents; if we turn our nation into a police state for the sake of security, then we will have been defeated - even as our tanks roll triumphantly along the boulevards of Baghdad.

Strangely, the most persistent warning of such a catastrophe comes from a temporarily dethroned idol of the American right - none other than Georgia's own former Congressman Bob Barr.

He has aligned himself with the American Civil Liberties Union (as well as the American Conservative Union) to criticize a plethora of new federal laws and regulations aimed at shoring up national security by reducing personal freedoms and invading privacy.

At a recent panel discussion at the National Press Club in Washington, ex-Rep. Barr declared:

''We all like and respect (Attorney General John Ashcroft) for his commitment to many of the causes we ourselves advocate. But, we must remind ourselves and the government not to forget that the investigative and surveillance powers the administration seeks will be at the disposal of his successor and his successor's successor. Will the same powers used currently against, say, anti-war protesters, be used in the near future against the pro-life movement? Regardless of what one thinks about the anti-war set or pro-life advocates, allowing the federal government to persecute them for their political stances has no place in a great country like America.''

Being careful to praise President Bush for his prosecution of the war, Barr went on to cite specific examples of the administration's repeated attempts to encroach on privacy and chill free speech.

Is this a new gig for Barr, now an announced candidate for the 6th District congressional post that Johnny Isakson is vacating? Is Barr trying out a fresh campaign strategy for a moderate congressional district, one that is less gung-ho on gun rights and pro-life stances than were his former constituents in the old 7th District?

Barr says no. He is the same old unsmiling, gun-promoting, fetus-saving crusader as always. He's just trying to repackage himself slightly for a more affluent, better educated north metro Atlanta district.

Says Barr: ''The left and the right tend to agree on privacy issues, oddly enough, because of their disagreement on so many other issues. The only way we can protect our constitutional right to disagree, the main safeguard against authoritarian government, is by ensuring that the evidence of those beliefs - our personal information - is, in the first instance, protected against access by the government, and in the second instance, protected from misuse or disclosure by the government.''

As you may know, after serving in the House since 1994, Barr jumped into a newly configured congressional district last year and lost to fellow Republican incumbent John Linder. Despite his defeat, Barr continues to enjoy almost rock-star status among ultraconservative activists outside Georgia.

He is one of several announced candidates for the Isakson House seat. When the General Assembly finally adjourns, additional candidates are likely to emerge.

But because of his past record in serving national conservative causes, Barr is nearly certain to have the greatest potential for raising campaign cash. The election contest may boil down to a GOP primary battle between Barr and The Other Guys.

Some observers believe that, in the end, Barr is too extreme to win in a district that was tailored for the moderate Isakson, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

That assessment may be true. Yet, in this current post-war wave of almost unbridled adulation for the administration's military polices, especially in the South, knowing that at least one credible conservative voice is willing to articulate serious reservations about pressing the war against terrorism too far on the home front seems reassuring, at a time when we are woefully lacking in reassurance.